Posted
by
kdawsonon Tuesday January 29, 2008 @09:06AM
from the finger-pointing-all-around dept.

Dr. Eggman notes an Ars Technica analysis of the firefight that is the current Congressional debate over granting retrospective immunity to telecoms that helped the NSA spy on citizens without warrants. A Republican cloture motion, which would have blocked any further attempts to remove the retroactive immunity provision, has failed. This controversial portion of the Senate intelligence committee surveillance bill may now be examined in full debate. At the same time, a second cloture motion — filed by Congressional Democrats in an effort to force immediate vote on a 30 day extension to the Protect America Act — also failed to pass. The Protect America Act has been criticized for broadly expanding federal surveillance powers while diminishing judicial oversight. While the failure of this second cloture motion means the Protect America Act might expire, a vote tomorrow on a similar motion in the House will likely bring the issue back into the Senate in time. It seems, according to the article, that both parties feel that imminent expiration of the Protect America Act is a disaster for intelligence gathering, and each side blames the other as progress grinds to a halt."

If it passes I wish that I had enough money to hire a lawyer and take this law to the Supreme Court as I do believe that somewhere in some old document called the Constitution it say something about not passing laws ex post facto. It's not like it'd be hard to win either, it's pretty clear about that in the Constitution, unless everything is truly corrupted and there's just no hope left.

Never mind ex post facto for a minute. The Protect America Act has been in place how long? What has it accomplished? What? For all these rights that have been trampled, what has been gained? What? Name one positive good outcome from it?

Perhaps it's time to remind your representatives that you want some ROI here. My constitutional rights are very expensive. If their abuse of my rights does not land bin laden in jail, or bolster the free world by some provably huge fscking margin, then I'm going to want to see rolling heads. So far... I'm thinking of rolling heads (figuratively speaking... say hello to the nice FBI agents)

Uhh? people have less rights - what more do you want? - and, by virtue of all the hoo-hah (tm) "omg, there's a terrorist behind you", people are afraid. I seem to recall someone mentioning that a fearful electorate is easier to control. So, there you have it - mission accomplished.

...What? Name one positive good outcome from it?
Perhaps it's time to remind your representatives that you want some ROI here.
Do you seriously believe any such results would be released legally within the public domain? More likely to be a topic of discussion in closed testimony before Congress.

If the absence of a negative outcome is proof to you, I'll be sending you a bill shortly for my hard work preventing you from getting cancer.

As it happens, the effectiveness of intelligence against terrorists can be measured objectively by simply enumerating the terrorists caught, bombs or other means of terror confiscated, or nefarious schemes exposed using information gathered from said intelligence. So, anyone got any statistics on those ?

You see, that's the beauty of the Administration's "anti-terrorist" measures. Any statistics would be deemed classified due to national security, and thus, only your grandkids will likely be able to answer the question. In the meantime, you can either believe the politicians, or you don't. Neither view can be confirmed. It's a big information black hole.

As it happens, the effectiveness of intelligence against terrorists can be measured objectively by simply enumerating the terrorists caught

Sounds like the sort of thing that would give government an incentive to capture a bunch of people and lock them up without holding trials, counting them all as terrorists. Good thing we have something called habeas corpus, so that can never happen here.

While we're on the topic, I have a rock I can sell you that will protect you from tigers. Since I found this rock, I have not been attacked by a single tiger, so its effectiveness is 100%. You'd be a fool to pass it up.

Homer: Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm.Lisa: That's spacious reasoning, Dad.Homer: Thank you, dear.Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.Homer: Oh, how does it work?Lisa: It doesn't work.Homer: Uh-huh.Lisa: It's just a stupid rock.Homer: Uh-huh.Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around, do you?[Homer thinks of this, then pulls out some money]Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock.[Lisa refuses at first, then takes the exchange]source [snpp.com]

How is the previous post a troll? Believe what the AC is trying to say is that since there have been (apparently) no more attacks of 9-11 scope carried out in the US, perhaps, just perhaps, the program is working.

How is the previous post a troll? Believe what the AC is trying to say is that since there have been (apparently) no more attacks of 9-11 scope carried out in the US, perhaps, just perhaps, the program is working.

Umm, IANALOCLS (I am not a lawyer or Constitutional Law Scholar), but my understanding has always been that only prevents the Government from passing retroactive laws that criminalize events in the past... i.e: if alcohol prohibition is passed tomorrow they can't punish me for drinking today. It doesn't prevent them from retroactively decriminalizing something.

Granted, it's a load of shit that they are even considering immunity for these bastards, but I still think you'd lose if you tried to argue against it on the basis of ex post facto laws.

Because you left out decriminalization. Do you think that when it was decided that prohibition of alcohol was a bad idea that it should be left up to the President and the Judicial system to give everyone pardons and immunity (which in most cases someone has to be arrested for something before they can receive either)? Don't you think it would be a hell of a lot easier of the legislators were able to change and retract laws? I would like to point out at this time there have probably been more judges boug

To summarize, a homeowner shot a burglar that was in his home. The homeowner was not charged with the shooting as it was deemed to be in self-defense, but was charged for violating the town's ban on handguns. A major bruhaha ensued.

The state legislature passed a law giving people charged with violating a local government's

Ex post facto (Latin for "after the fact") means that a person cannot be prosecuted for violating laws passed after he/she committed an act. So if I were to call Congress a bunch of asshats, and 3 days later Congress were to pass a law banning all mockery of that very august body, I still could not be prosecuted. (And all of that could happen, because most members of Congress are, as we all know, asshats.)
But ex post facto says nothing about being granted immunity after the fact. Basically, there is nothing in the constitution that prevents the government from selling out to corporations, even retrospectively. Damned asshats.

You wouldn't have standing to sue unless you could prove: 1) That'd you'd been surveiled 2) That the surveillance had caused you harm--which, incidentally, is the point of the legislation in the first place.

Actually, you would have almost not chance of winning with the current Supreme Court.

This court has struck down time and time again in any case where a person who brings the lawsuit cannot demonstrate that they have been harmed (mostly on controversial cases that they don't want to deal with).

And since the warrantless wiretaps were done in secret and there is no chance that you can find out whether or not your phone was tapped, and thus, you would have no standing in the eyes of this Supreme Court.
Th

I really wish they would start giving honest descriptive names to Bills, rather than marketing names. Seriously, just like the new 'Economic Stimulus' bill, that should be 'It's an Election Year, here's a handout that won't really affect the economy much'. Bills to impose new taxes should have names like 'Bend over for us please' or 'Yeah, we're screwing you again.'

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, stop calling it a peacock. Yes, I know it will never happen. One can fantasize.

Equally, in Britain, who wouldn't support the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001?* There's something tragic about the way that on both sides of the Atlantic, our shared culture has lost or is losing all the things that made it great - individual liberty (and it's twin, responsibility), cultural confidence, distrust of authority and the same bullheaded stubbornness and refusal to submit that is the common factor from Hereward the Wake through to a few thousand men sitting shivering, starved and dise

People keep calling it "the PATRIOT Act", but there are three additional letters at the beginning: "USA". Its full, proper name is "the U SAP AT RIOT Act", which isn't really all that bad a description of it (aside from the txtspk).

Now we can't retract the retrospective immunity they were granted without possibly undermining the US government's promises even further... not that the telcos should have necessarily been granted it in the first place, but now there is another thing that is catching us up.

Actually, it's liberty, equality, fraternity. As someone states in his sig, this makes for an interesting set of priorities... too bad neither the french nor the americans seem to follow that set of priorities.

Just remember, when you are reading about the fall of the American constitution that it's not because any person involved is inherently bad. Quite the opposite. Most of them are good. They love America generally speaking and want the best for their people. They have to. Power only works when you respect the people you control. When you approach each person involved in this situation and ask them just what the fuck are they thinking, they would probably tell you, and honestly at that, that they are doing the best they can for the people they represent.

I'm not saying stupidity is an excuse. I'm just saying that the supposed "inherent evil" that people want to believe politicians all possess isn't the problem. The problem is political ignorance and an extreme distance from reality that accompanies the higher eschelons of power.

This is also, I would imagine, why the fore-fathers imagined a country run by the stronger states, not controlled by a stronger federal government. Keep the power closer to the people, at lower levels, and the reality is much harder to miss.

But the thing is that Congress-critters are a lot smarter than you think. Like most people (not all), they have their own self interest at heart. They may want to protect their business constituents, that's all. And gosh, you don't want someone with all that money to be donating it to someone that may not be able to help in the next election, do you?

With the US going in the opposite direction of China, Iran, North Korea etc they will in a short timeframe meet halfways. We will have a world where the western world inches towards the banana republics and opressors while they go slowly towards democracy. This is interesting times to live in. One cant stop wondering if it will stop halfways or if a time down the road we westerners will be the new "muslims".

With the US going in the opposite direction of China, Iran, North Korea... while they go slowly towards democracy

Uhh, yeah, I'll grant that on Iran (with the students and young moderates) and maybe even China, but North Korea???

One cant stop wondering if it will stop halfways

It'll come back around. Look at some of the laws that got put on the books is the US and UK during WW2. Hell, look at some of our actions [wikipedia.org] during that time. Hell, look at some of what happened after [wikipedia.org] the war.

Point being, that in spite of all of that, it eventually came back around towards freedom and liberty. I see no reason why it won't do so again as long as we continue to fight for

I liked the comment [gpo.gov] by Sen. Bond (R-Mo.) that failure to give telecom providers retroactive immunity for any crimes they may have committed would be

leaving them open to disclosure and exceedingly serious competitive and reputational harm, perhaps even physical retaliation by radicals who oppose our intelligence gathering.

He is saying -- he is actually saying -- that Congress has to prevent its own laws from being applied to a corporation, because if the courts are allowed to proceed with civil lawsuits, angry mobs of disaffected citizens will storm the corporate headquarters of AT&T and Verizon and burn them to the ground because they oppose intelligence gathering. We must circumvent the legal process to soothe the hordes of Americans who are furious at the NSA. This is surely the most bizarre panem-et-circenses ever.

Or maybe he's saying Al Qaeda sleeper cells will launch attacks on key NOCs for our internet backbone... the only thing holding them back is they're waiting for word to come that a civil lawsuit has been filed against the owning corporation and depositions have been submitted and discovery is proceeding, Allahu Akbar!

if the courts are allowed to proceed with civil lawsuits, angry mobs of disaffected citizens will storm the corporate headquarters of AT&T and Verizon

Well, to be fair, the only proven way to stop a horde of radicals with pitchforks and torches is to calmly explain to them that the criminals spying on them paid millions of dollars to politicians who then let them off the hook. "You mean we have no legal recourse against those who wronged us?" the mob will say. "Well, there's hardly any point to physical retaliation unless it can be accompanied by lengthy judicial review of an accompanying civil lawsuit!"

I like Bush's logic that created this debate:
GWB: "We must allow domestic spying immediately in order to prevent another 9/11."
GWB (2 weeks later): "I will veto any domestic spying legislation that doesn't retroactively protect the telcos."

In other words, protecting the telcos (retroactively!) is more important than preventing another 9/11.

No. Congress works for itself, its members have their re-election as their primary concerns, and this has been the way for centuries (though the fine details have varied). If this surprises you, you're not realistic enough.

If the Fuck, er, ah, Protect America Act expires, the old FISA law is still in effect. The key difference is oversight. The Democrats in the Senate will pretend to put up a brave fight then give Bush everything he wants. We got screwed when Congress rammed the PATRIOT Act I down our throats. Everything else since then has been gravy for them. Makes you wish you were a big fat corporation. After the telecoms get their immunity, other corporations will want the same deal. I hope I'm wrong. I really do.

Someone needs to bring back Reagan's Trust but Verify. For all the Reagan humping among republicans today, it amazes me that they can suggest with a straight face that a simple check to make sure something horrible isn't occurring behind the scenes is somehow the wrong idea. It's like no one's even heard of the difference between a democracy and a _constitutional_ democracy, and why that was the great American innovation. It's not democracy that prevents tyranny, it's the constitution. Please don't fuck

We voted the Dems into the senate precisely so they could fight on important legislation like this; so they could stand firm on principals and keep the executive branch in check. him.

Right and you vote in Republicans to lower taxes and shrink government. It's all good in theory, but in practice never quite turns out that way. The only difference between the two groups is that they think there is differences between them.

There is no need for it. The existing FISA laws
are enough. It is only up to the government to
follow FISA and do the warrant procedures properly.

The PAA and the attempt to include retroactive immunity
is a sham to destroy the constitution. If passed, then
it would set a precedent that would allow any corporation
to get immunity for their actions. Pure fascism.

Examples would be pollution cleanup, consumer poisoning,
and investment fraud. The mess that would result would
actually destroy the corpora

Enough of this chiseling around. Someone should introduce a bill making GWB above the law, and law as well as in fact. We should spell out the super-capabilities of the Executive, essentially pointing out that we have an elected, term-limited King.

We've just been pussy-footing around for the past 7 years. GWB is very nearly a King already, between Signing Statements and Executive Privilege. The mechanisms of tyranny are in place. The checks and balances of government are broken. So the question becomes, "Do you trust GWB?" as well as, "Do you trust the next President?"

Name a spade a spade, and maybe people will finally wake up to the slippery slope we've been sliding down.

I certainly won't deny what you've said, that everyone grabs power. But it's also not reasonable to defend Bush by saying, "all of the other leaders are doing it, too." I'm not saying that that's what you're doing, but others have. I will further say that Bush has taken the power grab to new heights.

Of course the Ds blame the Rs and vice-versa. They both want the spying, but know it's unpopular and cannot afford to be seen as supporting it in an e[rl]ection year. Yet they don't want to be seen/accused of doing anything to hamper the WOT.

The hypocrisy of Congress cannot by overestimated. Without the moral compass that principles provide, there will always be situations where expediency is unclear.

The Republicans want spying. It's popular with their constituents, who have been led to believe that the President^H^H^H^HCommander in Chief^H^H^H^HGod's Anointed One can direct "patriotic corporate citizens" to do anything he wants (and declare them immune from prosecution later).

Democrats, with the exception of a few yahoos, pretty much want the rule of law to be upheld. As do many of their civil libertarian supporters. They don't want widespread domestic survei

Are you willing to pay for all that, including the "oversight" part (which would be the first thing that someone is likely to try and cut when the budgets get tight)? Or are you one of those "I want the government to protect me, but I don't want to pay for it" whiners? Or maybe you believe we can just keep printing more money to pay for everything?

That's a wonderful post with completely valid points. Unfortunately you overlooked the fact that had anybody bothered to connect the dots, 9/11 could have been stopped using the existing laws on the books with the powers that the Government already had.

All the wiretapping in the World isn't going to help you if the President gets a memo saying "[SOMEBODY] determined to attack US" and ignores it. All the wiretapping in the World won't help you if FBI agents in the field are being ignored by headquarters when they attempt to report suspicious activity.

Maybe we should be asking why all of those failures happened instead of bending over backwards to give the Government sweeping new powers to monitor our daily lives.

It's even worse than that. All the wiretapping in the World is going to hurt you if the problem is that it's already too hard to pick signal out of noise in the intelligence we currently gather. If you start also sifting through conversations between people so unsuspicious that you can't even get an after-the-fact FISA warrant to spy on either of them, does that add to the signal or does it add to the noise?

Republican Senators are right now stonewalling and trying to prevent a one-month extension of the same legislation they insisted last year was vital, urgent, and necessary to prevent terrorist attacks in "days, not weeks [salon.com]." The President has said he would veto a one-month extension of this legislation that, last year, we supposedly needed to stop the terrorists from attacking America.

They are protesting a one-month extension so that people who aren't paying attention will pressure Democrats to cave in and give Republicans what they want. The Republicans are literally -- if you believe their own words -- exposing America to danger of terrorist attack as a political tactic to pass the legislation they want.

And what they want is retroactive immunity for corporations so that we, the people, have no legal recourse to discover whether those corporations cooperated with the Bush administration in breaking the law.

The tools are already available. They allow the NSA to spy, and they allow American corporations to assist that spying. It's just that the laws must be followed. They are not difficult to follow. And corporations already are immune from both civil and criminal consequences if they can just demonstrate that, even though they broke the law, they acted on a good-faith belief at the time that what they did was legal.

If you think this about whether we can monitor what the terrorists are talking about, you're wrong.

So, you want to join the debate about this bill but you don't care what anyone thinks about the bill? Won't that sort of hinder your ability to engage in rational discourse?

Bottom line is: there needs to be a way to be able to monitor terrorist activity, criminal actvity... ANY KIND OF THREAT BEING PLANNED.

See? The discussion is over the attempt to rid the bill of a provision protecting telecoms from the consequences of their past criminal activity. This has nothing whatsoever to do with monitoring terrorist activities, apart from the fact that certain members of congress (Jeff Sessions, for example) led by VP Cheney are willing to scuttle the bill if they can't get their friends a "get out of jial free" card.

We've been damned fortunate and thwarted every single planned attack since 9/11... we've batted 1.000 so far. At some point, we're going to be nailed again unless a way is found to MONITOR future plans.

Uh, what attacks would that be? And how does that have anything to do with the PAA which, as I just pointed out, has little or nothing to do with the telecom immunity? As far as I recall, all of the so-called "threats" that have been thwarted have turned out to be bogus, and none of them--none of them were found using the powers under PAA. So what's the connection?

I'm not suggesting we totally roll over to the authorities and have Big Brother watch every single thing every American does. But Common Sense dictates that SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE DONE.

Perhaps. But even if, as you say, "SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE DONE" a minute's thought leads to the conclusion that giving big corporations a blank check to violate our nations laws probably isn't it.

I never said deal with immunity "later". I said deal with them as separate issues.

Then you should be agreeing strongly with the people who want the immunity provisions removed from the PAA, and objecting to the (mostly Republican) efforts to tie them together. Is this in fact your position?

How is anyone at liberty under the threat of being bombed anywhere at any time?

The American position used to be "Give me Liberty or give me Death," and people who argued the position you appear to be advocating were

If you are so interested in this whole "immunity" business with the telco, then direct your passions and energy at them. It's not my issue. Certainly if there is lawbreaking going on, then by all means go have it prosecuted.My interest is allowing the government to surveil terrorists as a means to disrupt or completely stop thier plans. That is certainly not limited to telcos, or for that matter, any entity.

It is ironic you use the phrase "Give me Liberty or give me Death". Patrick Henry was a slave owner..

Private communication is a key factor in a democratic society. Without it, a powerful opposition is not possible. And an opposition is very necessary, even though the current US regime/government tries to label it 'unpatriotic'. But then, I'm an ignorant European treehugger who undersands nothing about the dangers USA is facing. There is also a nice quote from one of the great minds that America has produced. "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither L

We've been damned fortunate and thwarted every single planned attack since 9/11... we've batted 1.000 so far.

By that weak standard, Bush should also get full credit for there not having been a single American city demolished by a meteor, and he's "batted 1.000" in keeping California from falling into the Pacific.

Maybe we should look at it the other way around. George Bush has been the only president in the 20th century to allow such a devastating foreign attack on our soil.

It might just be that the threat of terrorism isn't as serious as you seem to think.

But the most important argument against creating a "total surveillance society" in order to prevent terrorism is that there already is a very good legal system for allowing the kind of surveillance against terrorists that you seem to believe we need. It is called the FISA court and gives our government plenty of tools for fighting terrorism.

Finally, for me it comes down to this: Yesterday, we heard one GOP senator after another say that the telecoms did nothing wrong in allowing the government to eavesdrop, and the program is completely legal. Well then, why do they need immunity? Why not leave it up to our legal system and a jury of citizens to decide whether any laws were broken.

blcamp, I live in the shadow of Sears Tower. I'm as concerned about my wife and daughter as you are about your family. But as I've said before, I will take my chances with the terrorists, but leave my liberties intact.

If you want to be that pedantic, don't forget that FDR was president during the only time since the War of 1812 when a foreign power occupied United States soil (the capture of two Aleutian islands, Attu and Kiska, by the Japanese).

blcampy, you don't read carefully enough. I said that George Bush was the first President to allow such a devastating attack on our soil. There's plenty evidence that 9/11 was the most devastating attack on US soil in the 20th century.

And yes, being 100% safe from terrorist attacks IS mutually exclusive with protecting our civil liberties.

Except Qwest, I believe. I don't support blanket immunity, but I do support some immunity. We should be looking at specifics on a case by case basis.

Then you shouldn't support any immunity. If you want to look at by a case by case basis then haul each company into court, if they are found no guilty, they did no wrong, if they are then they should face the consequences. The reason they are asking for immunity, because they know what they did was illegal, but the people in these companies don't want to face j

OK. I'm all for making the tools available, once the make sure that they safeguard our everyday civil liberties and that their continued use is based on regular and accurate validations their efficacy.

Seriously: Safeguard our liberties first then worry about security.

Security in the United States today is Security Theater. It's operatic in it's grandeur and stupidity.

5 Year olds and US senators on 'No Fly Lists'? Falafel stakeouts in San Fran looking for Iranian sleeper cells? The Secret Service strong-arming high school students for anti-war anti-bush speech? Calling the Bomb Squad on hot chilies, LED cartoon advertisements, and state owned traffic monitors? Arresting, Beating, Nearly Shooting & Killing innocent people because they act or look different?

There is no way I'm willing to give up any of *anyone's* liberties for that sort of buffoonery.

Those tools are already being abused. The FBI has admitted to using warrentless wire tap provisions intended to fight terrorism on non-terrorism related cases. Not once, not a few times, thousands of times. Agents were either improperly trained on how to use the powers, or deliberately abused their powers. In either case, a bit scary, no? We have freedom and liberty for a reason, to sacrifice them for a very nebulous degree of safety (after all, point out one major terrorist plot that was stopped by th

Nobody else is going to easily do it again even without all the "Patriot" bullshit. The 9/11 hijackers "ruined the market" for future hijackers.

Before 9/11 the "unwritten protocol" was - hijack announced, everyone meekly stays in their seats, nobody (mostly) gets hurt, negotiations start, hijackers get something, passengers get to go. Unless of course the hijackers were crazy enough to do El Al;).

After 9/11 hijackers WILL have a more difficult time with passengers and air crew, the cockpit doors are reinforced. Enough passengers will think "If I'm going to die anyway, I'm going to make sure that hijacker suffers first". If everyone just threw their shoes and stuff at the hijackers at the same time it will really hurt:). I can tell you for sure that many passengers will look at each other and have a go at the hijackers.

In fact even _DURING_ 9/11, passengers on board one of those planes figured out what was happening, and one of the planes didn't hit the target.

You think most hijackers haven't figured that out? Only a few stupid ones (or mentally ill) have tried since 9/11. They have to move on to other methods if they want to crash into towers - charter/steal private planes etc.

The bulk of the new procedures like banning liquids and checking shoes is just to make the stupid sheeple feel safe.

The fact that the US Gov lies to its citizens regularly, and puts in laws that don't actually address the problem shows to me that the US Gov is a greater danger to US citizens than the "evil terrorists" are.

The 9/11 killed like 3K? And cost the USA how much?

In comparison the US Gov started a war in Iraq (based on _deceit_ ) and got how many killed? And cost the USA how much?

Not to mention the US Gov has been trampling over the "precious" US constitution which so many US citizens _allegedly_ value so much. They don't even bother to amend the constitution, they just ignore it or twist the interpretation so much.

The US people should serious consider who really is their biggest enemy.

>>In comparison the US Gov started a war in Iraq (based on _deceit_ ) and got how many killed? And cost the USA how much?Argh this is something I hate when people do. The fact that the Iraq war was started on the basis of dishonest evidence has NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING RELEVANT TO YOUR ARGUMENT/caps. Don't bring it up, because your argument is not "fuck Bush," it's that it's foolish to trade away liberty for no additional security towards something that isn't particularly dangerous in the first

It is very relevant. Go read my post again. One of my arguments was people are in greater danger from the US Gov than the "evil terrorists".Crude formula:risk = impact * probability.danger = badness * power.

You could be very bad (incompetent or evil) but if you have zero power, you're no danger.You could be very powerful, but if you aren't bad, you're no danger to most people either (you might be a danger to the bad people...).

The US Gov has far far more power to ruin your life (and the life of any random p

That's the POINT. Reasonable controls would be requiring a warrant (which is as simple as presenting a basic reason to an impartial judge). The government can already perform these taps with a warrant using the secret and expedited FISA court. This law guts the warrant necessity eliminating any reasonable control. It's already been shown that the FBI has abused these sorts of wiretaps with bogus National Security Letters. We're not saying don't wiretap, we're saying require a review (as required by the

as long as my constituional rights don't get outright trampled on, I REALLY DON'T CARE HOW THEY FIND TERRORISTS... just as long as they catch and kill every goddamn one of them.

Including ignoring the rights citizens of other countries have in their countries? Beware, slippery slope ahead. It leads to a PR disaster that would crush the last bit of goodwill the rest of the world has for the USA. Which would be very welcome to any terrorists.

The trick to terror prevention is ensuring your safety without causing more damage than the terrorists could have. Alienating people is rarely a good idea because that only gets more people motivated to join the terrorists. Alienating entire countries is just as bad because they might not want to do business with you anymore (yes, that's possible; China is a viable alternative) and your economy suffers. Alienating your own people is even wore because it creates unrest and might even get som of them to help the terrorists out of the belief that the current government needs to be replaced.

Just finding terror suspects and killing them at any cost is quite likely to get the country into more trouble than just dealing with them like one did before the whole War on Terror(TM) started. The correct approach lies somewhere in the middle. One needs to be careful enough not to upset everyone but thorough enough to actually catch the dangerous plots. That requires more deliberation than zealotry.

"as long as my constituional rights don't get outright trampled on, I REALLY DON'T CARE HOW THEY FIND TERRORISTS... just as long as they catch and kill every goddamn one of them."What the hell is wrong with this country? Why is it that congress, and the populace aren't trying to solve the freakin' problem?

Why don't people ever stop and ask the question: Why are they so pissed off at us? What have we done to deserve this? If they did, people might actually discover that the terrorist, as well as much of the

Another thing to tack on to reasons to support international politeness is that it allows elected political leaders in other countries to do things that benefit you. You don't run into situations like we have in Iraq, where many developed nations can't help us even if they wanted to, because the people in charge of sending money or troops would get voted out of office. Notice, for instance, the difference between Iraq and Afghanistan. In Afghanistan, because we were polite with the rest of the world when

I REALLY DON'T CARE HOW THEY FIND TERRORISTS... just as long as they catch and kill every goddamn one of them.

The problem is 90% of the stuff they do isn't designed to catch terrorists. It'd designed to look like they are doing something to catch terrorists. According to the latest penetration tests against the airports we are probably less safe than prior to 9/11. The mass influx of tech and new recruits to the screening process has dropped the catch rate from 85+% to as low as 65% in some places. You hav